Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The reported status in 2013 should have been 'U1 Inadequate' instead of 'Favourable': also then the FRR > actual range. ||
->Coverage: Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with some knowledge gaps (remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several vegetation types not exactly known, …). We use minimum (= minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat). ||
->HabCondition: In Flanders Atlantic, this habitat is divided in three subhabitats or subtypes. Of one subtype all locations and of another subtype a part of the locations are monitored with respect to their vegetation development and partly to their habitat structure and environmental disturbances. Only those locations we can evaluate with a high reliability are taken into account and assessed in good condition. We consider the rest of the locations as areas where condition is not known. Information on typical species (Red List status) and spatial coherence of the habitat is determined directly on the regional level. As a consequence, this information cannot be integrated in the areas given in field 6.1, but it is used to assess the conclusions on specific structures and functions (field 10.3). ||
->Future: Due to future creation of tidal or estuarine habitat in the surroundings of the Zwin the area of 1310 will increase. Probably the de-embankment of Prosperpolder (Schelde) will also contribute. On the other hand there will be a loss of 1310 through harbour expansion in Zeebrugge. ||
->Conclusion: Using table 13 of the guidelines results in an unknown overall trend, which differs from the 2013 trend (which was stable) but we consider this as a result of the use of a different method. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Abweichend von der Empfehlung in den Guidelines bei einer FV-Bewertung der Spezifischen Strukturen und Funktionen einen Schwellenwert von 90 % Flächenanteil in gutem Zustand anzuwenden, wurde in Deutschland im Regelfall der Schwellenwert von 80 % beibehalten, um unter anderem die Kontinuität zu den vorherigen Bewertungen zu wahren. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The Community of Pais Vasco reported a genuine change but its coverage area represents a 3% of the total area. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Les conséquences de l'élévation du niveau de la mer ainsi que les modifications du régimes sédimentaire qui leur sont associées auront très certainement un impact plus important sur les surfaces d'habitat que sur l'aire de répartition. L'évolution des structures et fonction est difficile à prévoir étant donné le caractère très spécialisé des taxons qui structurent cet habitat. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 1310 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool. Eleven 10km grid cells generated by the range tool that had no coastline or suitable estuarine habitat were removed.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). None of the anthropogenic area losses recorded during these two reporting periods led to a contraction in the range. The short-term trend is assessed as stable.
The number of 10km squares in the range (163) is 14 squares lower than the last monitoring period (NPWS, 2013). This change is likely due to the use of a slightly different methodology for the derivation of the distribution of 1310 on which the range was based and a change to the field survey method.
The Favourable Reference Range (FRR) has decreased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) due to the use of a different method. The FRR is the current range, reported in 4.1. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 2006 (McCorry, 2007) when the pilot baseline survey was carried out, and incorporates updates made by surveys carried out between 2006 and 2018, the details of which are listed in section 3.2, namely McCorry and Ryle (2009), Brophy et al. (in prep.) and Perrin (2018b).
During the current reporting period, 53 sites containing 1310 were visited and assessed for Area, 48 by Brophy et al. (in prep.) and five by Perrin (2018b). The 53 sites assessed for Area represent 0.6km2 (52%) of the total area of 1310 habitat recorded in Ireland. This represents a significant proportion of the total area of 1310, covering all coasts, and therefore it is considered that the conclusions drawn for the surveyed areas can be applied to the country as a whole.
There are still likely to be areas of unmapped 1310 habitat in the country, often in the form of small patches that have developed in areas of disturbance, such as vehicle tracks or where the settling and displacement of algal mats have resulted in bare ground suitable for colonisation by this pioneer habitat. Such areas were recorded during the 2017-18 survey, and therefore it is likely other examples exist outside the surveyed area. For this reason, the figure for surface area is considered to represent the minimum area for this habitat.
The difference in habitat extent between the area of 1.16km2 calculated for this reporting period and the figure of 1.83km2 reported during the previous reporting period is due to a number of factors including changes caused by natural variation and other ecological processes, a small amount of anthropogenic loss, but particularly a change in survey methodology and a change in how the area of 1310 was calculated. Where entire polygons were previously often assigned to the dominant habitat in the field, with mosaics recorded in some cases, the 2017-18 survey (Brophy et al., in prep.) assigned percentages to the various habitats within any given polygon, allowing greater resolution of habitat area. Furthermore, the methodology used in the previous reporting period calculated the 1310 area by relating the area of 1310 habitat recorded by the SMP to the area of 1330 habitat recorded (NPWS, 2013). This method was not used for the current assessment, as there is no reason to believe that the area of 1310 has a quantifiable relationship to 1330. The apparent change in 1310, therefore, is likely to represent a mixture of genuine change, natural variation and changes to methodology.
Favourable Reference Area (FRA) was determined to be approximately equal to the current surface area (1.16km2). The FRA from the previous reporting period (1.83km2) was set as the same as the then current habitat extent based on extrapolation and/or modelling using partial data (NPWS, 2013), as noted above. For this reason, the FRA is set as approximately equal to the Area calculated for this reporting period. While some loss is acknowledged, it is considered to be negligible over the period in question in light of the naturally dynamic nature of this habitat.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be stable. Loss due to anthropogenic activities during the current reporting period was calculated to be 25m2, which represents 0.005% of the area surveyed in the period 2017-2018. This loss was due to works carried out to repair an adjacent embankment. In light of the dynamic nature of this habitat, this loss was deemed to be negligible. In the previous reporting period, expert judgement was used to assess the short-term trend as stable.
The long-term trend in Area was deemed to be stable based on the fact that the previous reporting period assessed the short-term trend as stable (NPWS, 2013), and there has been no change in direction of the trend for the current reporting period. ||
->HabCondition: The typical species for the 1310 habitat are: Puccinellia maritima, Salicornia europaea agg., Salicornia pusilla, Parapholis strigosa, Plantago coronopus, Sagina maritima, Sagina nodosa and Suaeda maritima.
During the current reporting period, 53 sites containing 1310 were visited and all 53 were assessed for Structure and functions; 48 by Brophy et al. (in prep.) and five from data collected by the SAMFHIRES project (Perrin, 2018b). The 53 sites assessed for Structure and functions represent 0.6km2 (52%) of the total area of 1310 habitat recorded in Ireland. This represents a significant proportion of the total area of 1310, covering all coasts, and therefore it is considered that the conclusions drawn for the surveyed areas can be applied to the country as a whole.
Of the 53 sites assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period, 90% (0.54km2) of the area was assessed as Favourable and 10% (0.06km2) was assessed as Unfavourable. This result does not deviate significantly from the findings of NPWS (2013) presented below.
The approach used to estimate the percentage of the 1310 habitat in Unfavourable condition at each site was as follows:
If none of the assessment criteria failed at the site level then none of the 1310 area was classified as Unfavourable and the whole area of 1310 at the site was assigned as being in good condition; if 1 to 2 criteria failed at the site level this resulted in 25% of the 1310 area being classified as having Unfavourable Structure and functions; if 3 assessment criteria failed this resulted in 75% of the 1310 area at the site being classified with Unfavourable Structure and functions; if 4 or more criteria failed at the site level this resulted in 100% of the 1310 area at the site being classified as Unfavourable. Due to the particular threat posed to 1310 by the expansion of Spartina anglica, which competes for the same pioneer habitat, where the failed criterion was “Vegetation composition: negative species” at a stop level, the site cannot be assessed as more than 50% good condition. The most frequent criterion to fail was “Vegetation composition: negative species”, due to an increase in the cover of Spartina anglica in the vicinity of the monitoring stop.
During the last reporting period, 90.6-99.5% of the 1310 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS, 2013). Due to the fact that the percentage of 1310 habitat assessed as Favourable in the current reporting period (90%) is within the previously reported range, the short-term trend of habitat area in good condition is taken to be stable. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Stable.
Current range is equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Stable, as no change in Range is expected beyond those associated with the natural changes to this dynamic habitat.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Stable, as there have only been negligible anthropogenic losses within the last two reporting periods.
Current area is not smaller than the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Stable, as no change in Area is expected based on the threats and pressures identified.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction of Structure and functions is Stable for habitat that is in Good condition.
Current Structure and functions is assessed as Favourable as 90% of the habitat is in Good condition.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Structure and functions is assessed as stable although the extent of Spartina should continue to be monitored closely.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Good. ||
->Conclusion: The Conservation Status of Area and Range are Favourable in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions and Future prospects are assessed as Favourable during this reporting period, whilst they were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate in the previous reporting period. This apparent improvement is due to a change in methodology and the result for the previous reporting period would have been Favourable using the updated thresholds in the guidelines.
The Overall Conservation Status is Favourable and the Overall Trend in Conservation Status is assessed as stable as there is no evidence to suggest that Spartina anglica cover has increased nationally. This stable trend differs from the deteriorating trend of the previous reporting period, which was assigned on the basis of a threat (i.e. the on-going spread of Spartina anglica) that could not adequately be quantified because previous data were not available for comparison. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this species is expanding at the national level. Nevertheless, Spartina anglica and the potential effects of climate change should be monitored closely. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Distribution map is based on vegetation maps within Natura 2000-sites and relevé data in- and outside Natura 2000-sites over a period of 12 years. Some vegetation maps still contain uncertainties and relevé data may have gaps, but we assume that total distribution is well covered for 90% or more. A change of 10% is used as a Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. threshold for positive or negative trends. Favourable Reference Values are based on Bijlsma et al. (2014), WOt report 125. Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable data are available for all salt-marshes, but a selection of sites indicates an increase in area of 1310 by 200 ha; main increase occurred on the Wadden Islands (Jentink 2018) ||
->HabCondition: Analysis of S&F is based on KRW data of salt marshes (subtype A, FV) and Typical species (FV), but no complete KRW data are available; further the NDFF-method showed U2-score for subtype B, but this subtype covers a rather small area; there is a positive trend in typical species and stable trend in structure and function of subtype A, but a negative trend in structure and function of subtype B. As the area of subtype A is much larger than that of subtype B, the overall assessment is FV and overall trend is stable. ||
->Future: Due to climate change and sea level rise a decrease in area is expected for the near future ||
->Conclusion: The positive trend is because of a combination of increase in area and increase of score for Typical species. ||
->JustificationThreshold: 10% decrease/increase is used as threshold for all trends, due to uncertainty in data; a formula with 75%/25%-thresholds is used for conservation status of Structure & Function and Typical species. ||
->Other: Report by John Janssen (WEnR)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Negative - decreasing <=1% (one percent or less) per year on average; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Negative - slight/moderate deterioration ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is uncertain; and (ii) the current Area is not more than 10% below the Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are poor; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - uncertain, and Structure and functions - uncertain.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Area trend has changed from decreasing to uncertain, and the Structure and functions trend has changed from increasing to uncertain [note that the reason for change is due to less information/accuracy or certainty in the information available]. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Considering the extent of restoration and management projects of 1630, it is suggested that the range and surface area of 1310 has not reduced. Thus, the actual trend in range is expected to be stable. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: According to expert opinion some areas, presumably in good conditions, are not yet mapped. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: According to expert opinion some areas, presumably in good conditions, are not yet mapped. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Dynamic habitat and area can vary year by year. Compared to the 2013 report, habitat hasn't been detected at Jurmala and Lilaste, but monitoring was just once. In the same time habitat has been found in new place in Ainaži. According to the mapping data from the project "Nature counting" (95% of areas surveyed), the habitat was found to be 63.45 ha (40 ha in the previous period). ||
->HabCondition: The different habitat subtypes are described starting from 2013, as well as prevoiusly there has not been habitat mapping at state level, therefore it is impossible to indicate trend - no information to compare ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: 20% of mapped EU habitat evaluated to be in low quality (only reach minimum criteria) - accordingly the 10.3. "specific structures and functions" indicated to be U1. For the value of area in good condition used information about habitats only in excelent quality where no management activities necessary to improve quality. ||
->JustificationThreshold: It is not possible to measure a change of 1%, as previous assessments were based mainly on N2000 sites assesment, but now assessment inludes all state area. ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The favourable reference range is expected to be the same as the current value and is not expected to be changed due to close the same indata as last reporting period. Some new sites could have been added and the tool/grid could make minor changes. ||
->Coverage: Reference values as actual value, as no change is observed or calculated. 2013 reporting Reference value was higher than actual, but more accurate data from last years inventory gives that the area is OK and haven´t decreased as was given earlier. ||
->HabCondition: Typical species - Atriplex pedunculata EN (2015 and 2010) even if it occurs regularly in this habitat it is more frequent in the sea shore meadows and the threat is in these habitats caused by the decline in grazing and the populations in 1310 is the most stable for the species. The typical bird species are not relevant for the quality of the habitat. They are more linked to the surroundings, that there are grazed shore meadows in the surrounding that are big enough and not to fragmented.
Most problematic for the quality of the habitat are the fast expanding invasiv alien plant Cotula coronopifolia. ||
->Future: Structure and functions are Bad due to the invasive alien species Cotula coronopifolia that expand fast and take over this habitat. ||
->Conclusion: Conlusion and trend are the same as last report but the reason is different. Last report was Area Bad due to much smaller area than needed for long time survival of the habitat. More accurate data gives bigger and also no signs of decreasing Area. Instead one invasive alien species (Cotula coronopifolia) has arised as a hugh problem the last five years, and the prognosis looks very problematic. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Les espèces typiques sont bien les mêmes qu'au précédent rapport. Il s'agit simplement d'une mise à jour taxonomique et nomenclaturale. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation que l'Aire de répartition est favorable (FV) - aire de répartition stable sur la période considérée ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (700km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (874 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. Wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy wyliczaniu zasięgu za pomocą Range Tool wzięto pod uwagę mniejszy „gap distance” niż w raporcie opracowanym w 2013 roku. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX

Monitoring siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono na 4 stanowiskach.
Na jednym stanowisku (Ciechocinek 1 – rezerwat) – wprowadzono działania ochronne, ktore zowocowały poprawą stanu ochrony siedliska ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The favourable reference range is expected to be the same as the current value and is not expected to be changed due to close the same indata as last reporting period. Some new sites could have been added and the tool/grid could make minor changes. ||
->Coverage: Reference values as actual value, as no change is observed or calculated. 2013 reporting Reference value was higher than actual, but more accurate data from last years inventory gives that the area is OK and havent decreased as was given earlier. ||
->HabCondition: Typical species - Atriplex pedunculata EN (2015 and 2010) even if it occurs regularly in this habitat it is more frequent in the sea shore meadows and the threat is in these habitats caused by the decline in grazing and the populations in 1310 is the most stable for the species. The typical bird species are not relevant for the quality of the habitat. They are more linked to the surroundings, that there are grazed shore meadows in the surrounding that are big enough and not to fragmented.
Most problematic for the quality of the habitat are the fast expanding invasiv alien plant Cotula coronopifolia. ||
->Future: Structure and functions are Bad due to the invasive alien species Cotula
coronopifolia that expand fast adn take over this habitat. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion and trend are the same as last report but the reason is different. Last
report was Area Bad due to much smaller area than needed for long time
survival of the habitat. More accurate data gives bigger and also no signs of
decreasing Area. Instead one invasive alien species (Cotula coronopifolia) has
arised as a hugh problem the last five years, and the prognosis looks very
problematic. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range of the habitat type was calculated on the basis of its mapped distribution using a gap distance equal to 4 km and by excluding cells with unsuitable ecological conditions. ||
->Coverage: The area covered by the habitat type is reported on the basis of the area of recent mapping polygons of the habitat type. However, due to lack of extensive mapping of the habitat, more data is needed to provide more detailed information. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future prospects for the range and area were estimated by best expert
judgment, while for structure and functions on the basis of the data included in Hab_Mon CYPRUS database (ver. 3 - Dimopoulos et al. 2019). ||
->Conclusion: The difference in the Conservation status of the habitat type from the previous
reporting period is due to the following facts:
a) the structure and functions were revealed in inadequate conservation status
on the basis of the sampling conducted during the period 2013-2018,
b) the reference values for range and area was judged as higher than the
recorded values for these parameters on the basis of expert judgement and
taking into account the reduction of the habitat type’s distribution the last
decades due to land use changes and human-caused disturbances at the areas where the habitat is present. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Critères et informations à utiliser pour juger de l'état de conservation des structures et fonctions : fragmentation, connectivité ; fonctionnement hydrogéologique / salinité. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat des Structures et fonctions en U1. Habitat pionnier "habitué" à couvrir de petites surfaces, je ne pense pas que la fragmentation ait beaucoup d'impact sur lui. La modification du fonctionnement hydrogéologique de certains secteurs a pu lui être préjudiciable par endroits ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Assumption: 90% of habitat area is estimated to be in good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: In the Maltese Islands, this community is found in saline marshlands and similar habitats. Due to the very small and limited size of these marshlands, a mosaic community is often found, with habitat 1310 (Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand) observed to be co-occurring within the same few square metres with habitat types 1410 (Mediterranean salt meadows) and 1420 (Mediterranean halophilous scrubs). Habitat 1310 is differentiated from the other two in terms of the dominance of annuals (such as Salicornia ramosissima, Salsola kali, Salsola soda and Suaeda maritima), and less rush and scrub cover. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The change in the overall conservation status is primarily due to change in the methodology used for assessing the ‘Structure and Functions’ parameter of the habitat. Taking into consideration the recommended use of an indicative value of 90% of the habitat type area in ‘good’ condition as a threshold to assess the parameter as ‘Favourable’, lead to an ‘Unfavourable’ assessment of both the parameter per se and the overall assessment. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The data in this report has been mostly updated through habitat surveys carried out by the Environment and Resources Authority in 2017 and 2018. This exercise has enabled the assessment of the distribution and habitat condition with considerable accuracy. Field surveys were also complemented with desk studies, focussing on orthophoto analysis, and additional ground truthing, where possible. In this regard, the Authority has acquired drones with the aim to facilitate and assist future monitoring and surveying of all Annex I habitats.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report